Power Signals: Real or Political Theater?

Our ability to accurately interpret these signals is more important than ever

Dec 22, 2024

Last week, on a routine run to the grocery store, I witnessed the equivalent of two bucks clashing in the wilderness. A Tesla Cybertruck and a high-end Ford F-150 faced each other in a lane too narrow for them to pass. The Ford revved its engine while the Cybertruck flashed its headlights, each defying the other to back down. All I could do was laugh.

I live in a pristine alpine setting but even here the clash of symbolic power is an everyday sight. The scene perfectly captured how we’ve transformed ancient dominance rituals into modern abstractions – from antlers to angular steel, from territorial growls to engine sounds.

This automotive showdown caught my attention not only for its drag queen level theater, but also for what it reveals about how supremacy is displayed and interpreted in America today. Each vehicle speaks its own dialect of authority – the Cybertruck’s aggressive futurism declared mastery through technological advancement, while the F-150’s muscular traditionalism asserts its authority through heritage. Neither approach is accidental; both are carefully crafted brand expressions that rely on our ability to “read” visual depictions of power.

What makes this particularly relevant to us now is how seamlessly the commercial language of power flows into our political sphere. The same instincts that lead some to identify with a monstrous truck or a wart hog wannabe EV also shape how we respond to political imagery and messaging. When candidates stage a rally, create a campaign ad, or even choose what to wear, they’re flexing their muscles in the same way – just with higher stakes.

The Evolution of Power Signals

Humans have been projecting visual representations of power since we lived in caves. In our earliest societies, it was through direct physical presence – the strongest hunter, the most intimidating warrior, the tribal elder whose very bearing commanded respect. These primal projections relied on the universal recognition of size, strength, and aggressive posture.

As societies grew more complex, religious and military traditions began codifying displays of dominance into formal systems. Religious leaders elevated themselves literally and figuratively – building raised altars, wearing tall, elaborate hats, and wielding sacred objects that transformed physical presence into spiritual authority. The military reinforced its command and control stature individually through medals, insignia, and uniforms, and collectively through orderly bases, strict training protocols, and highly choreographed marching bands. Showcases of lethal weaponry substantiated their claims.

The industrial revolution shifted power displays from the ceremonial to the commercial. Corporate culture introduced a new visual language of authority that was more subtle but just as pervasive. The business suit became armor for the warrior-executive. Corner offices with commanding views replaced throne rooms. Luxury cars and cutting edge personal technology signaled success. These modern power exhibitions spread beyond the boardroom, influencing how authority is projected in a wide range of fields.

Today, these historical streams converge and evolve in fascinating ways, channeled by the firehose of social media. Consider how political figures blend traditional and contemporary power signals: AOC’s signature bright red lipstick combines ancient feminine symbolism with modern professional authority, while Trump’s use of the Mar-a-Lago executive boardroom blends corporate and political authority. Each element is a signal within a complex message conveying authority, authenticity, and aspiration.

This layering of power signals – from primitive to digital – creates an intricate visual language that we can learn to interpret. Just as early humans needed to read physical threats and opportunities in their environment, we must now decode increasingly sophisticated displays of authority in our political landscape.

Reading Power Displays

When every political moment is carefully staged and every signal deliberately chosen, the ability to accurately read and interpret these signals becomes as important as understanding policy positions or party platforms.

I’m a keen observer of how people project power or authority – from a preacher’s raised podium to a CEO’s watch – and I’ve come to see visual displays as falling into three distinct categories: authentic expressions of earned authority, aspirational signals of desired influence, and pure theater orchestrated to command attention.

The authentic expression of power flows from genuine capability or authority. It’s often revealed casually or without any fanfare. It’s visible in the steady competence of an emergency room physician, or the quiet confidence of a veteran teacher. In politics, legitimacy often appears most clearly in moments of genuine leadership – when a local official coordinates disaster response or when a seasoned legislator negotiates a challenging compromise. This type of authority doesn’t demand attention; it’s earned through demonstrated mastery.

Because authenticity takes time and effort to develop, some have no patience for it. This brings us to aspirational power signals – the displays that reflect not what we are, but what we hope to become or in some cases, what we pretend to be. The startup entrepreneur in a hoodie suggesting an affiliation with coders rather than bankers; the petite female executive wearing 4” heels so she can communicate at eye level; even Ted Cruz’s sudden adoption of a sculpted beard to visually signal gravitas and seasoned wisdom – these projections are meant to suggest a future or preferred level of authority.

The third category – pure theater – might seem the least substantive, but it often proves the most compelling and influential. For instance, in a major political rally every element is choreographed, from the music selection to the camera angles, from the crowd composition to the backdrop messaging. It’s political performance art, designed to bypass our rational analysis and connect directly with our emotions.

Jacob Chansley, the January 6th insurrectionist who appeared in face paint and horned fur headdress, embodied theatrical projection in its purest form – where costume and performance become the entire message. Kamala Harris’ rallies morphed into concert venues for top celebrities, demonstrating how modern political theater increasingly borrows from entertainment culture. Trump’s cabinet selection process at Mar-a-Lago does likewise, transforming traditional governmental processes into staged episodes that prioritize spectacle and media attention over institutional procedure.

While each of these displays – authentic, aspirational, and theatrical – can stand alone, they’re often deployed simultaneously. In fact, some of the most effective communicators understand this interplay well, skillfully balancing their actual credentials with aspirational vision and theatrical flourish.

The Convergence of Power Displays

Biden’s depiction as Dark Brandon, complete with aviator sunglasses, laser eyes, and enhanced social media presence, shows how even legitimate authority sometimes needs theatrical elements to resonate in modern media environments. Across the political divide, Trump’s scowl during and after his indictments transformed legal challenges into a portrayal of defiance, merging theatrical influences with aspirational authority. His raised fist after an assassination attempt further ingrained this posture of resistance and defiance.

As a demonstration of converged displays, nothing beats 2023’s proposed cage match between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Here were two men wielding enormous power who nonetheless aspired to prove themselves in a physical battle. The resulting theater played out through carefully staged training photos, strategic social media posts, and the grandiose suggestion of fighting in Rome’s Colosseum. In case it isn’t obvious, Elon was the Cybertruck and Mark the Ford 150.

This fight never happened – no surprise to anyone who honestly appraised the two middle aged men – but it was a revealing interchange. These billionaires’ global authority wasn’t enough for them. They felt compelled to present more visceral forms of dominance, acting out this impulse through elaborate social media performances. The episode was simultaneously absurd and enlightening, showing how even those with real influence often feel driven to supplement it through theatrics.

The Stakes for Democracy

This isn’t just about becoming more sophisticated media consumers – it’s about preserving the fundamental ability to make informed democratic choices. Failing to recognize the differences between authentic, aspirational, and theatrical power displays undermines democracy in three critical ways:

First, we risk creating a political environment that rewards performance over competence. Leaders who excel at theatrical projection may advance while those with real capabilities but less dramatic presentation styles are overlooked.

Second, we become vulnerable to manipulation by those who understand how to exploit our instinctive responses to power displays. When we react without reflection to theatrical dominance or practiced charisma, we bypass the critical thinking essential for democratic decision-making. This vulnerability becomes particularly dangerous when skilled performers align their displays with our pre-existing fears or aspirations.

Third is how these misreadings can gradually erode democratic institutions themselves. When we consistently mistake theatrical performance for legitimacy, we may inadvertently support the dismantling of systems that check and balance power, falsely believing that dramatic portrayals of strength represent legitimate authority.

Learn to Defend Yourself

I’m not suggesting we somehow end theatrical or aspirational displays – they serve valid purposes in political communication. Rather, we need to develop and maintain the ability to recognize each type of power projection for what it is, understanding when it helps and when it hinders meaningful political dialogue.

Developing this visual literacy requires both personal awareness and shared understanding. Like learning any language, our skill grows stronger with practice and conscious attention.

Start with Personal Power Displays

Our own relationship with power projection is an effective and accessible learning laboratory. Notice how you project authority in different contexts – a workplace meeting, a parent-teacher conference, or a community gathering. What makes you lean on theatrical gestures versus authentic ability? When do you feel compelled to project more authority than you have? How do you present yourself in situations where you are genuinely in charge? Understanding our own patterns helps us recognize similar dynamics in political figures.

If you’re thinking “I don’t project power,” consider looking more closely. We all assert authority in some situations, whether as a parent, a host, or an expert in our field. The key is identifying where you have natural influence and examining how you express it.

Decode Staging Elements

Modern political events are intricate productions where nothing is accidental. Each element – from set design to music to crowd arrangement – carries deliberate meaning. Train yourself to notice how these elements work together. For example, how does the physical positioning of figures convey hierarchy? Consider Obama’s 2008 victory speech in Grant Park, where careful staging placed him slightly elevated but surrounded by everyday citizens, communicating both leadership and connection to community.

Background elements carry equally calculated messages. When Harris spoke at the pulpit of historically Black churches, she was connecting civil rights heritage with current progress. When Trump held rallies in airplane hangars with Air Force One as his backdrop, he was combining institutional power with theatrical scale. By recognizing these careful choices, we begin to see how staging shapes our emotional responses to political messaging.

Question Emotional Responses

When a political figure or event provokes a strong emotional reaction, pause to examine its source. Notice what specifically triggered your response. Was it their command of facts, their theatrical presentation, or perhaps how they validated your existing beliefs? Are you responding to demonstrated capability or skillful staging?

This kind of self-reflection isn’t about suppressing emotional responses to politics; it’s about understanding them well enough to distinguish between authentic connection and manufactured reaction. This balanced approach can help us remain active, informed participants in the democratic process rather than passive consumers of power performances.

Your Turn

Want to become more skilled at decoding power projections? Here’s some techniques that work for me:

At an airport, scan the crowd looking for inauthentic power displays. What makes those elements or behaviors seem faked or theatrical?
In a workplace, contrast those in positions of power with everyone else. What’s notable about their appearance? Their behavior? Their presence?
On a playground, watch children interacting. This is the starting point for dominance gestures. How do the kids signal who’s in charge? What happens when they don’t agree?

Have you noted any political power displays recently? I’d love to hear about them in the Comments. Your insights or stories might help others better discern what’s real and what’s pretend.

Hidden in Plain Sight

Discussion about this post